We should be thankful that we live in a time period where our standard of living is high and food is in abundance.  There may still be some people in this world, in third-world countries, who are near starvation, or at least malnourished.  But in America, most poor people eat.  America is one place where you will find that even some poor people are overweight.

When it comes to food in America, it is a mixed economy.  It is a combination of the free market and government control.  Sometimes I will get in to discussions with people about liberty.  They will say that the government has to do this or that because that is the way it is done now.  I like to respond that if the government ran the grocery stores, many people would say that the free market would not be able to provide such a service.

I have little idea how grocery stores operate.  I don’t know how they predict what consumers will buy, other than past patterns.  I don’t know how they get trucks to deliver food.  I don’t know how they stock their shelves and how they rotate their food.  But I don’t really need to know much about grocery stores.  There are other people who do know what to do and the competition ensures that the best run grocery stores are the ones that stay open.

It is a scary thought to think of what grocery stores might look like if the government were in charge of them.  We would probably be eating the same thing for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.

But while grocery stores are somewhat free market, the foods that are sold in them are under a lot of government control.

There was a recent report put out by the Institute for Justice entitled The Attack on Food Freedom.  It details some of the government intrusions and outright harm that is done.

The government will often do things in the name of “protecting consumers”, but it is still an infringement on our liberty.  In some cases, it even has the opposite effects.

These government intrusions come at us from all levels.  They come from the federal government, state governments, and local governments.

There are obvious infringements or attempted infringements that people have heard about, such as banning the sale of large sodas.  But there are also a lot of areas where people are not even aware that the government is involved so heavily.

The report discusses that much of the origin of the American Revolution was a result of economic liberty and food freedom.  But while the American colonists were well aware of what was happening to them, Americans today have little idea.

Interestingly, it was a Supreme Court case involving food in the 1930s that set a bad precedent that we continue to pay for today.  In Wickard v. Filburn, a wheat farmer named Roscoe Filburn exceeded his quota of wheat production, which was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program.  Filburn argued that his excess wheat was for personal consumption and therefore had no effect on interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court ruled that Filburn’s consumption of the wheat he grew could still have an effect on interstate commerce.  The Supreme Court really turned the Commerce Clause on its head and this is the clause cited today for many of the violations of the Constitution, which is most legislation and edicts.

In our world today, we have to live with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and crazy laws such as the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was passed three years ago.

It is not surprising that the FSMA particularly hurts small farmers and food entrepreneurs.  It is legislation that keeps out the little guy, while big business gets the government-granted privileges.  But that is far from the only thing.

In the Institute for Justice’s report, it details the government’s war against raw milk.  The report states:

“Another symbol of the FDA’s attack on food freedom in the name of so-called food safety is the agency’s heavy-handed enforcement of its ban on the interstate shipment and sale of unpasteurized (raw) milk.  Many states also ban the sale of raw milk.  The FDA adopted its ban reluctantly in the late 1980s due to a lawsuit by Public Citizen that ultimately forced the agency’s hand.”

Opponents of raw milk argue that it can be dangerous due to bacteria.  But many health proponents see this as a benefit, as your body needs beneficial bacteria to properly function.

Just like any food, raw milk can be potentially dangerous if it is mishandled.  But that is also true of any food, including meats and vegetables.  The point is that consumers are not being allowed to freely choose for themselves.

This gets even more egregious when you look at the government’s actions to enforce its laws.  As the report states: “In 2011, for example, the FDA – along with U.S. Marshals and a state police officer – carried out an armed early morning raid on the rural Pennsylvania farm of Dan Allgyer.  The raid was the culmination of a yearlong undercover investigation into Allgyer, who the FDA determined was providing raw milk to consumers in the Washington, D.C. area, in violation of the agency’s ban on interstate sales.”

So if buyers and sellers voluntarily try to do business with each other in violation of the government’s rules, they will come in with their guns loaded.

The report points out that it is not just the FDA, but also other departments such as the Department of Agriculture that continually harass people in the food business.

The report also details that it is not just rules and regulations coming down from the federal government.  In many cases, it is state and local laws that we have to deal with.

The report gives one example as follows: “In 2013, Miami Shores, Fla., amended its ordinance to prohibit front-yard vegetable gardens and informed Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom Carroll that they faced fines of $50 a day if they did not destroy their beautiful garden.”

There are many more cases where cities violate property rights with ordinances that make little sense.  It doesn’t just happen in places like New York City where they try to ban big drinks.  It is happening all over.

The report doesn’t even get into many of the other outrageous things that government does to our diet.

Whether it is putting fluoride in our tap water or promoting high fructose corn syrup, it sometimes seems as though the government is almost trying to kill us.

In some cases, it may just be politicians and bureaucrats that don’t know better.  In many cases, it is likely just pure politics, where lobbyists for big businesses get politicians to pass legislation in their favor in exchange for their support.

As long as politics exists, this will continue.  Fortunately, with the technological age we live in today, we can communicate more freely.  I believe that many more people are becoming aware of the fact that they shouldn’t listen to what the government tells them.  They are taking their health into their own hands and finding ways around the regulations, such as going directly to local farmers.

We should continue to educate people on this subject and make them aware of the things that government is doing to them, or preventing them from doing.  We each own our own body and we should be free to put whatever we want in to it.  I can drink raw milk without forcing anyone else to do so.

There are some critics of government who think that contracting out government work is a more efficient way of doing business.  Some even believe that having the government hand out contracts is a form of free market capitalism.

Of course, when government contracts are awarded, it is still using taxpayer money.  It is not as if consumers are freely choosing the services.

But while issuing government contracts has little to do with free market economics, there is a decent argument to be made that it can be more efficient than having government agencies do the work.  I suppose the next question is whether we actually want more efficiency in government.

It was recently reported that a security contractor has received a $190 million contract to do administrative work for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The company that received the award is U.S. Investigations Services LLC (USIS), which is alleged to have previously defrauded the government by performing insufficient background checks for highly sensitive government jobs.  This trouble began three years ago and the company was later sued by the Justice Department.

The company has also received some other bad press, as it was reported that USIS was in charge of the background checks of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter, and Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower.

In regards to Edward Snowden, I suppose this might be one scenario where we should be happy that government contractors are not always efficient.  There are many other instances where we should be glad that government workers and government contractors are not efficient.  I do not want an efficient IRS.  I do not want an efficient NSA.

Just because government work is contracted out to the “private” sector, it doesn’t mean it takes the politics out of it.  Someone has to award the contracts.  Are we going to be so foolish as to think that there is never any kind of favoritism, for whatever reason?

I have no idea if there was any cronyism involved with this immigration contract.  USIS won the contract with the lowest bid.  Maybe it really was better than the alternatives.

Regardless of this one contract, we must realize that government spending is still government spending, even if it is in the form of contract awards.  And we should always expect that there is going to be favoritism.  Politicians and bureaucrats have friends.  There are usually lobbyists involved.  I’m guessing it is in a minority of cases where a contract is awarded solely based on price and quality.

If anything, cronyism will actually increase with more government contracts.  Most government agencies are bureaucracies.  Some of the employees may be very intelligent, but most of them are staying under the radar.  They want their funding to continue.  They want to make sure they collect their pension upon retirement.

The U.S. does not have a socialist system.  The government does not own the means of production in most cases.  It is more economic fascism.  It is corporatism.  The government is calling the shots in many cases, but there are companies making money.  Some make money by selling consumer goods and services that are in demand.  This is the capitalist portion.  Others make money through government contracts and through lobbying government for regulations to keep away competition.

Cronyism is not going to stop any time soon.  The only way it can be stopped or reduced is by reducing the power of the politicians in government.  This means reducing the funding.  The less money that the politicians can spend, the less that can be wasted.

The ACLU recently published an interactive map on the web that categorizes states based on the strength of privacy laws enacted.  This was based on four categories of privacy laws which included law enforcement access to electronic communications, location tracking, automatic license plate readers, and domestic surveillance drones.

It was noted that just because there is a state law regarding privacy protections in one or more of the listed areas, it does not automatically translate in to stronger privacy rights.  For example, Texas has drone laws, but these laws are insufficient and may even be harmful to individuals.

According to the ACLU’s map, Utah was the winner as the state with the greatest privacy protection.  It is ironic that Utah is one of the most conservative states.

It is often thought that, from a libertarian standpoint, Republicans are stronger on economic issues and Democrats are stronger on issues of civil liberties.  So it is interesting to note that heavily Democratic states such as California and New York did not rank well for privacy protections.  But it is also fair to note that there are some Republican/ conservative states that did not rank well either.

In a country of over 300 million people, it is almost impossible to significantly change anything in Washington DC.  It is even hard when there are millions of people trying to change the same thing.

Washington DC is run by lobbyists and corporate interests.  It is also run by bureaucracies.  It is quite difficult to change this.  I have pointed out in the past that is almost impossible to get rid of the National Security Agency (NSA), barring some kind of major federal bankruptcy.  Even then, I’m not so sure.

But there is a little bit more hope in seeing that many states are passing laws to provide greater privacy protections from government.  This must continue.  I always say that if you can’t change a local or state law, then there is no way you are going to make it happen on the national stage, assuming it is a change that would somehow reduce government power.

One thing we will eventually need to see are state laws with some teeth against the federal government.  We can’t put the cart before the horse though.  We must see strong state laws against government spying that are first enforced at the state and local levels.  When this becomes more widespread, then we may begin to see some stronger stands against Washington DC.

One possibility is that states begin to invoke the idea of nullification.  State laws should be passed that essentially nullify federal laws (or actions) because they are unconstitutional and a clear violation of liberty.  Federal spying with no warrants is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

The big question comes if the states actually try to enforce this.  What are the states going to do to stop a federal government that is constantly spying?

It is probably not a coincidence that Utah was ranked as having the best privacy protection laws when the NSA has a huge data center in the state.  This is where your emails and other electronic communications are being stored.

There are already movements that are attempting to get Utah legislators to shut off the water supply going to the data center, as it supposedly uses over one million gallons of water every day.  While I think this movement is probably premature, it is an interesting idea.  But for the Utah legislature to take a stand this big against the powerful U.S. government, it is going to take some major support from the citizenry.

As technology continues to advance, the NSA is only going to get worse.  We will live in a world of virtually no privacy.  The good news is that free individuals and groups of individuals will also use new technologies in ways to fight back and make the NSA’s job more difficult.

There are going to be different methods of fighting the NSA.  But before we can have major success, we have to win battles at state and local levels.  It is good to see that we are at least making a little progress.

See update below.

The Obama administration is asking Congress for over $2 billion in funding to deal with the new flood of immigrants across the border from Mexico.  Many of these immigrants are children, oftentimes without accompanying parents, who are originating from Central America.

While this story has received some recent attention, it really is probably being under reported.  The curious thing is that there is not a universal explanation for the huge wave of children that are all of a sudden pouring in.  Of course, all of these immigrants are coming across illegally.  Most of them are really poor, especially by American standards, and they are fleeing their home for a reason.  If it is just because they are from poor countries, it doesn’t explain why there has been such a huge number in just the last year.

Obama is also going to request powers to deport immigrant children who arrive without their parents.  Perhaps the strategy of these parents was to send their children alone, in hopes that they would somehow be taken care of, once arriving in the United States.

If Obama and the federal government are going to deport tens of thousands of children, how are they going to do it?  How much is it really going to cost?  And what happens if the children and their parents are put at political risk by deporting them?  Is the U.S. government going to deport children facing a dangerous situation?

These are not easy answers, even for liberty advocates, to answer.  For Americans, we cannot easily change a bad situation in other countries.  We can only change our own situation.

One of the major causes of an immigration problem is that America has become a welfare state.  We are just a really wealthy welfare state.  The welfare state did not come about until after there was great wealth accumulation.  In other words, there are still a lot of goodies to be handed out.

If the U.S. wasn’t a welfare state, then there likely would not be as many illegal immigrants.  There would also be less opposition to immigration because anyone coming to the U.S. would most likely be coming to find work.  They would be productive people.  There are already a lot of productive immigrants, legal and illegal, but there are some who take full advantage of the welfare state.

Obama is going to ask for $2 billion to spend on this problem.  This will just be the initial request.  You can bet that it will end up being a lot more.  That is a great sum of money to extract from the American population.

Don’t get me wrong here.  I would rather Obama spend $2 billion on helping poor immigrant children than spending money on drones to drop bombs on children in Pakistan.  But it is not as if $2 billion in additional funding for immigration is going to stop drone bombings.

It is also hard to say whether this $2 billion or more in funding is going to help or hurt the children immigrants.  If it is simply to fund the cost of deporting them, then it will only hurt the children.  That seems like a lot of money to spend to ship children back to an unstable environment.

There is another unfortunate aspect of the welfare state.  Because the government at all levels takes almost half of our money (maybe more, if you include the cost of regulations), Americans are not in a great position to help.  Worse, many Americans are less charitable simply because they expect the government to act as a charity.

If there was no American welfare state and we still had the situation of tens of thousands of children flooding across the border, then I imagine that many people would step up to the plate and provide answers in the form of charity.

I don’t have many answers to this issue, just as nobody really has all of the answers.  The government certainly doesn’t have the answers.  But if we had a voluntary free market, then different people would be coming up with different solutions.  Some would work better than others.  The ones that work better would get more of the funding from other charitable people.

Some of the answers might lie in foster care and adoption.  There are many Americans who want to adopt children.  Another answer might be finding other countries where there are people who want to adopt.  There are other answers in reuniting the children with their parents, whether it be in the U.S. or in another place that is more stable than their original home.

I fully realize that these immigrants are illegal.  But that is just a reflection of U.S. law.  It doesn’t make these people criminals in the sense of common law.  Most of them are innocent people seeking a better life.  It is impossible to gain access to the U.S. by going through the bureaucracy legally.  It is possible for them to walk across the border illegally.

No matter how the situation is dealt with, it should be done with compassion.  Compassion doesn’t mean taking taxpayer money to solve the problem.  But these are human beings trying to survive and most of them are not trying to harm anyone.  And the government is not going to be able to solve this issue.  It can only be done with voluntary charity and a free market.

UPDATE:  The amount Obama is requesting is now up to $3.7 billion.

There was a recent story involving a young man who could be sentenced to 99 years in prison for selling pot brownies.  Unfortunately, that is not a misprint.  A 19-year old Texas man is facing what is essentially a life sentence.

When the police entered his apartment, they found a pound of marijuana, a pound and a half of brownies and 145 grams of hash oil.  There is now an argument over the weight of the ingredients, as the police are counting the total weight of the brownies as part of the illegal substances.

It really shouldn’t matter whether you count the entire weight of the brownies because a potential sentence of life in prison for selling marijuana is absolutely insane.  I guess the guy might have been better off legally if he had committed rape or murder.

The good news is that there are many people who are protesting the charges against him and they are petitioning for reduced charges.

This is another episode where bad government laws are taken to the extreme.  It shows the absurdity of the laws in the first place that it would even be possible to get sentenced to life in prison for what is essentially a victimless crime.

While I believe the whole war on drugs is crazy, this is especially painful to see because marijuana is virtually harmless.  We are not talking about crack-cocaine here.  Marijuana is a relatively harmless drug.  Alcohol and cigarettes are far more dangerous (not that I am advocating to make those things illegal).

We really have to return to the question of who owns your body.  Do you own your body or does the state own your body?  Based on these absurd laws, apparently the state believes it owns your body.

It does not matter if you think marijuana is really bad for you.  It doesn’t matter if you think that marijuana will result in less productivity or a bad attitude.  You do not have to use it any more than you have to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.

The point is that we don’t live in a free society when you cannot choose what to ingest in your own body.

This case is even more ironic now when you think that someone could go to Colorado and do this type of thing legally.  If you commit a violent crime in any state in the U.S., you will likely get treated about the same wherever you are.  There are certainly variations with states in terms of the death penalty and mandatory sentencing, but you will generally see some consistency.

With marijuana, we are now in a position where it is perfectly legal in one state and you can face major prison time in another.  I believe we will see a narrowing in this disconnect.

Fortunately, I see more marijuana legalization in other states in the future.  I think this is a good first step in gaining at least a little rationality.

Even for drugs that are harmful, I see no benefit in locking people up, even if they are hurting themselves.  If someone commits violence because of a drug problem, then that person would be held responsible for the violent crime.  There are laws to deal with that without needing the drug laws.

Ironically, drug prohibition causes violent crime to skyrocket.  Instead of buying drugs in a drug store, there are shootouts in back alleys.  It was the same thing during the period of alcohol prohibition almost a century ago.  When alcohol was legalized again, violent crime went way down.

We should strive to live in a more peaceful society.  Sentencing a guy to a long prison term for selling pot brownies has no benefits for anyone, other than the drug warriors working for the state.

While technology and communication has been great for the cause of liberty, there is also a downside to it all.  While free acting individuals use it voluntarily for beneficial reasons, the government uses new technology to enhance power.

With Edward Snowden’s leaks last year confirming that the federal government is spying on us, civil liberty advocates have been pressing hard against the National Security Agency (NSA), while a large number of Americans seem to not care.

Unfortunately, our battle for privacy is not just with the federal government.  It is with government at every level, including many local governments.

There are devices now known as “stingrays” that can be used to track cellphones nearby.  They can track the movement of phones, as well as information about communications such as the phone numbers being called.  The devices basically mimic a cellphone tower in order to trick cellphones into reporting their information.

There is one Florida case where a police officer explained how he could stand in front of people’s houses and track the movements and information from their phones.

Of course, in following in the footsteps of the federal government, local law enforcement agencies are not obtaining the proper warrants for probable cause.  And even if they are, these stingray devices will pick up cellphone information over a broad area.  They are not just picking up the information from the one cellphone for which the warrant is issued, if any warrant is issued at all.

This ruins almost any hope of getting rid of the NSA anytime in the near future.  The only thing that is going to stop the NSA is a bankrupt federal government.

The ACLU has done a good job of fighting some of these abuses by local governments in the use of these stingrays.  And there are certainly many other groups that have done a great job of fighting the NSA at the federal level.

But most Americans just can’t seem to get too excited over this issue.  They don’t seem to care.  In some ways, this is rational.  In other ways, they are setting themselves up for tyranny.

If there are widespread violations of civil liberties at local levels, then there is no way they will be stopped at a federal level.  If you can’t stop the use of stingrays by the local police, there is no way you are going to stop the NSA.

I know that many people don’t care because they trust their elected officials a bit too much.  They are the people who will say, “If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.”

I’m sure the Jewish people living in Germany in the late 1930’s were being told the same thing.  “Now come with me.  This is for your own protection.  If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.”

This isn’t to say that concentration camps are coming to America.  It is to say that the government is spying to enhance its own power over you.  It isn’t to protect you.  How far this tyranny goes, nobody really knows.  It is really a question of how far Americans will let it go.  Fortunately, we do have a minority (hopefully a growing minority) who are raising their voices and speaking out against government spying.  In some ways, it is really this group of people that separates America today from Nazi Germany or so many other tyrannies through world history.

I still remain hopeful for the future.  My hope is that technology in the free market outpaces the technology being used by the bureaucracies.  I am hopeful that inexpensive technology will enable the American people to essentially spy on their elected (and unelected) officials.  I am also hopeful that more Americans will begin to realize that government spying is a threat to them, even if they have nothing to hide.

But before we get rid of the NSA, we need to get rid of the spying at the state and local levels.  If we can’t change things at the local level, there is no way we can abolish the NSA.

Adam Kokesh, a veteran of the Iraq War, was recently convicted in a Virginia court for possessing drugs and guns.  Kokesh has been an activist in the liberty movement, speaking out against war and speaking in favor of gun rights and other libertarian issues.

On July 4, 2013, Kokesh was videotaped with a gun in public in Washington DC.  He posted the video online.  He was purposely engaging in an act of civil disobedience.  Ironically, he underestimated the power of the government.  Days later, his house was raided for guns and drugs.

Originally, Kokesh was planning on getting a large group of people to walk from Virginia into Washington DC, openly carrying guns against the law on July 4, 2013.  While he described it as a nonviolent demonstration, I think his followers found their better sense and decided not to participate.

I think Kokesh is a good guy.  He has come strongly to believe in libertarian principles.  Some people outside of pro-liberty circles will see stories about Kokesh and think he is some crazy guy who wants to commit violence.  He may be a little crazy in the sense of being willing to take a stand, but his purpose is to take a stand against an out-of-control government.  The thing that many people don’t realize is that it is the government initiating force.  If you are minding your own business and not threatening to initiate force on anyone, then Kokesh is no threat to you.  He stated in front of a judge, “the only time I was violent was when I was a Marine”, referring to his time in Iraq.

Kokesh is being convicted because of his well-known views against government.  They really are trying to teach him a lesson.  He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, which is absolutely insane for someone who did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone.

Kokesh’s conviction reminds me in a lot of ways of tax protesters who refuse to file a tax return.  They come up with supposed legal reasons on why they are not legally required to pay income taxes to the federal government.  Sometimes their logic is great in terms of dissecting the laws.  The problem arrives when the judge and jury don’t see it the same way.

If I were sitting on a jury and someone was being prosecuted for tax avoidance, I would not vote to convict.  It is a victimless crime.  I know that everyone else is paying income taxes (although not really).  Everyone else is following the law.  But it still doesn’t make the law just.

I also understand that most other people do not see things the same way that I do.  And for that reason, I would never recommend that someone avoid paying taxes, unless it is legal.  Most judges and juries will convict someone if they violated the law.  Most will not consider whether the law is just.

Adam Kokesh underestimated the power of the government in the same way that tax avoiders do.  I think Kokesh understands this now, but unfortunately it is too late now.

I am all in favor of being an activist for liberty.  But you really have to be careful when you resort to civil disobedience.  When it comes to guns, you really have to be careful.  The government likes its monopoly on guns and will come down especially hard on those who challenge it.

The answer to advancing liberty is almost never to challenge violence with any insinuation of violence of your own.  It is through education.

There are over 300 million people living in the United States.  There are only 535 people in Congress.  The only way they can have power over the rest of us is if we consent to it.  When a sizeable portion of the American population no longer grants its consent to big government, then that will be enough to stop big government.  Civil disobedience can work when millions of people are doing it.  It tends not to work as well with just one person.

Kokesh actually hosted a show on the internet and also recently wrote a book.  He is very knowledgeable.  He is a principled advocate of liberty.  His interviews have been effective in helping others get educated about the benefits of liberty.  Kokesh was doing a great deal for the cause of liberty, but he went astray in underestimating the power and ruthlessness of the government.

I hope for his sake that his prison sentence is not too long.  I hope he learns from his mistakes.  I hope he gets back into society at some point and makes a great contribution to the cause of liberty.  It will be in the form of educating others.

On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and gave a televised speech with a big banner behind him that read “Mission Accomplished”.  That was over 11 years ago.

If his mission was to raise oil prices, it was accomplished.  If his mission was to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it was accomplished.  If his mission was to drain trillions of dollars from American taxpayers and holders of U.S. dollars, it was accomplished.  If his mission was to completely upend a country into chaos, it was accomplished.  If his mission was to virtually eliminate Christianity in Iraq, it was accomplished.

I have seen signs with Bush’s face saying “Miss me yet?”.  Sorry, but I really don’t.  As much of a disaster as Obama is, Bush’s wars are a legacy of death and destruction.  Obama has also reigned down death and destruction, but to a much lesser degree.

Bush, the supposed Christian, managed to create something of an Islamic state inside Iraq, with Christians being forced to leave or go underground or die.  Christians lived in Iraq and were tolerated under Saddam Hussein.

I remember listening to all of the war apologists, even years after the Iraq war had started.  The place was in total chaos, but I listened to many conservatives defend Bush and his policies to no end.  Anyone who opposed the Iraq war was labeled “unpatriotic”, “not supporting the troops”, or an “appeaser”.  People like Sean Hannity would ask callers, “so you believe that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein?”

Of course, this is a false question.  It doesn’t matter if Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein.  The question is whether the price was worth it.  That is not just a price in dollars, but a price in lives.  It is not just a price in American lives, but also for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died.  And the millions of Iraqis that saw their homes and businesses destroyed.

Ironically, the question about whether Iraq is better off without Saddam is quite obvious now.  Saddam Hussein was probably about the best that Iraq could hope for.  He was made out to be a tyrant.  He was a tyrant in so far as most politicians are tyrants.  The people that Saddam supposedly killed were people who were trying to overthrow him.  Are there any politicians in this world who wouldn’t kill a bunch of people who were trying to overthrow them?

This is no defense of Saddam, but Iraq was a relatively thriving place before.  There is not a lot of libertarian philosophy going on in Iraq.  In a choice between a little bit of tyranny and total chaos, most people would rather a little tyranny.  That’s what life was like under Saddam.

Total chaos has now descended upon Iraq.  It was inevitable.  It is incredible that many Bush backers still defend this.  They blame Obama for this chaos, for a war that was started over 11 years ago.

It’s true that there probably wouldn’t be as much chaos if Obama had left tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.  But that would have just delayed the inevitable.

The Bush apologists must believe that the U.S. government should keep troops in Iraq for hundreds of years.

To be clear, Obama did not completely abandon Iraq.  There are still U.S. personnel there.  There is a massive American Embassy in Iraq.  The latest news is that Obama is deploying a few hundred troops to Iraq to provide support and security for American personnel.  I suppose Obama does not want to be seen as weak or doing nothing.  Obama is weak, but not for this reason.

The pro-war Republicans will defend Bush and his foolish wars forever, no matter how bad things get and no matter how obvious it is that the whole thing is a disaster.  They will always blame someone else.

It is actually similar to how many Democrats will never admit that Obamacare is already a failure.  They will blame Republicans or whoever else for it not working the way it should.

At least many Democrats at least try to avoid the subject of Obamacare.  It seems that some Republicans are bringing attention to Iraq in an attempt to criticize Obama.  I suppose the so-called mainstream news will forget about Iraq in a few weeks, even if the chaos is still raging.  Maybe the Republicans who reminisce for Bush will stay quiet about Iraq once it drops off from the headlines.

The only thing the U.S. government should do now is to completely leave Iraq and apologize for the past.  Anything beyond that can only cause more problems.

It is ironic that the U.S. government is now considering backing Iran.  Meanwhile, it is having to oppose some of the same people that it supported in Syria.

The U.S. government supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s and then later turned him into an enemy.  The U.S. also supported Osama bin Laden, who later became an enemy.  This time, the U.S. is supporting and opposing the same groups of people simultaneously.  This is complete madness.  Before you know it, we may see U.S. troops fighting each other.  We’ll have one group for Syrian freedom, one group for Iraqi freedom, and another group for Iranian freedom.  Will this madness ever end?

There are some people who believe war is the answer to almost every problem in the world.  Violence cannot bring peace.  Violence usually leads to more violence.  More Americans are beginning to understand this.  I hope it is enough to prevent another full-scale war in Iraq.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been quietly bullying doctors in Massachusetts.  Since the state legalized the use of medical marijuana a couple of years ago, some physicians are associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, such as serving on a board.

The DEA has been quietly paying visits to the homes and offices of doctors associated with medical marijuana companies.  They are giving an ultimatum to doctors that they must choose between working with these companies or giving up their DEA license.

Physicians and dentists who prescribe drugs and other controlled substances are mandated to register with the DEA.  This in itself is an abomination.

So doctors are now faced with a choice of giving up their positions with medical marijuana companies or giving up their DEA license and be prevented from legally prescribing medications.

Ironically, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation that would stop DEA agents from raiding medical marijuana dispensaries where states have legalized medical marijuana.  If it gets to Obama’s desk, I wonder if he’ll sign it.

We know that the federal government doesn’t follow the Constitution, but this is really a blatant violation.  The politicians in DC pretend to pay allegiance to the Constitution, but their actions and policies usually violate it.

If the Constitution were followed, there would be no federal drug laws.  There are no enumerated powers that give the federal government such power.  According to the 10^th Amendment, this should be left to the people or the states.

But the worst thing here is that states are explicitly stating that medical marijuana is legal.  Yet, the federal government is still interfering with state law.  This still continues with the pro-civil liberties Obama (note the sarcasm) who promised in his initial campaign not to interfere with states that legalize the drug for medicinal purposes.

Yes, Obama broke a campaign promise.

Medical marijuana has been legalized in 22 states since 2010.  Marijuana itself has now been legalized in two states.  These are steps towards liberty.  It is a slight loosening of the grip of big government.

Don’t for a minute think that this has happened because of the generosity of politicians or because some of them all of a sudden saw the light.  This is all a result of popular opinion.

Ideas have consequences and, in this case, it is a good idea.  More and more people are realizing the absurdity of the drug war.  It is particularly obvious with marijuana, a drug that does far less harm than alcohol.  It is especially absurd when the government prevents sick and dying people from seeking relief.  Medical marijuana actually does help people without all of the bad side effects of other drugs.

The DEA is still trying to control and bully people, but it has to be more discreet now.  Popular opinion is slowly shifting away from big government and more towards individual liberty, at least for this issue.

The next step is to abolish the DEA.  I’m sure many of the doctors in Massachusetts would appreciate that.

It has been a rough few weeks for Obama and his administration, so what better time is there to sign an executive order to curry favor with a segment of the population?  Obama’s latest action is to sign an executive order to make it easier for some people with student loan debt.

Just like most things coming out of Washington DC, this is not something that is straightforward.  While federal law already caps loan payments at 10 percent of monthly income for most, this new order will apply to people who borrowed prior to October 2007 or those who have not borrowed anything since October 2011.

While this is expected to help millions of people with student loan debt, it won’t become available until late 2015.

Once again, Obama is taking it upon himself to make the law what he wants it to be.  He is probably purposely not going through Congress, not because he can’t get something through there, but because he wants the credit for this.

Obama has not been all that popular these days outside of Democratic circles.  There is also a good chance that Democrats will lose congressional seats with the November elections drawing closer.  What better way to gain some support for himself and his party than by buying off a segment of the population?  (In fairness, it is done in both major parties.)

Of course, the massive amount of student loan debt is a bubble that has been subsidized and promoted by the government, long before Obama ever became president.  The government issues loans that would not necessarily be issued by others in a free market.  The government encourages people to go to college and to take on debt.  This also helps to raise the tuition costs.

So what is the proper position to take for someone who wants to promote liberty and free, voluntary markets?

At first, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that Obama should not be doing this, as he is letting people off the hook and promoting an idea of less responsibility.  While this may be true, I think we also have to step back and look at the big picture.

If someone asks me whether there should be prayer in schools, I respond that it should be up to each school.  I am not a supporter of government-funded schooling, so I can’t really take a position with regards to government schools.

The same situation applies here.  Why is the government in the student loan business at all?  It is not only unconstitutional, but it is a complete distortion of markets and it requires putting taxpayers on the hook for any loans that go bad.

So while I think Obama is simply trying to buy votes and gain favor with a portion of the American people, I can’t really say whether this particular executive order is right or wrong, given the circumstances, aside from the fact that it is being done through executive order.

Obama is wrong because he supports government-subsidized student loans.  He supports this regardless of his latest executive order.  He is not someone who supports the free market.  He does not believe, at least with any consistency, in voluntary agreements.  He does not believe that the market can function on its own without government help.

If there were no government student loan programs, then we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we have with higher education.  College would likely be far cheaper.  Some students would still obtain loans, but they would likely be far smaller in size.  Loan companies would be cautious in lending too much money in fear of not being repaid.

When the government is heavily involved in these things, it distorts markets.  Unfortunately, it also gives politicians a chance to buy more votes and have some people cheer.

Let us remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  I am guessing that Congress will not reduce spending to offset the decrease in student loan payments.  Instead, the Fed can create more money out of thin air and the deficits can get bigger.  We can trade a little student loan debt for a little more inflation and government debt.